Status

Response

> The Atom Protocol spec leads directly with the different types of
> resources being managed, and clear diagrams and illustrations of the
> HTTP protocol. The Uniform Protocol spec instead largely maps things
> to SPARQL Update operations.

There have been some edits to address readability of the document (additional examples, re-wording in various places). Do you still have the same concerns regarding simplicity and documentation of a protocol model in light of these modifications?

> From a user-developer perspective I'd prefer to see some clear
> examples of how the protocol is intended to operate, complete with
> HTTP operations, right from the outset.

The current last call working draft now includes extensive examples of HTTP messages for most of the operations

> From an implementor-developer perspective, the mapping to SPARQL
> Update operations is a useful guide to how this protocol could be
> implemented as a layer over that language. But that's really just one
> approach, so perhaps should be moved to a non-normative section.

While implementers are indeed free to choose any implementation strategy they wish, the SPARQL Update examples are used to normatively define the required semantics of the protocol operations. I also feel that moving the mappings to Update operations into an appendix or a single other section would disrupt the flow of the text.

> [...] However my comment relates to management of Datasets, not graphs. I
> think it would be useful to be able to:
> * Add/Remove Datasets
> * Add/Remove Graphs from Datasets
> The specification already discusses the addition and removal of Graphs.
> Datasets added via a RESTful interface might then be available via a
> SPARQL endpoint that shares the same backing store.

> This seems me to map onto the model that's implicit in the Service
> Description documentation which indicates that a SPARQL endpoint might
> have several datasets, and that those datasets contain graphs. However
> at present the Uniform Protocol does not describe how to create
> datasets.

After some discussion (see meeting notes), the WG decided that we do not provide a life cycle for datasets and thus operations for adding and removing datasets would be a bit out of scope. In addition, the concurrent work in the RDF WG regarding representation of quads and named graphs would be a prerequisite for specifying the management of datasets over HTTP. Could you perhaps elaborate on a particular use case you have in mind for this behavior?